If you are impatient, here is a summation: Many of the anti police protests have a political agenda behind them and therefore visceral reactions need to be checked at the door. Referring back to the Tawana Brawley affair where a young black lady she was raped by racially motivated attackers, the Federal article details that while the attack was later revealed to be fake, a frenzy of support and protest was fomented for political gain. The goal is always to raise a trigger or red flag where injustice has occurred with authority, chaos of protest lends credence to the cause, and the social pressure brings about political change.

Seems pretty straight forward, and it has been practiced for decades by droves of activists. During 2016, both pre and post campaigns, “spontaneous” protests sprung for causes that were championed by the media: Black Lives Matter, Ferguson, anti-immigration is racism, etc. Protesters were supplied with t-shirts, signs and in some cases were cameramen for media outlets. The Anti-fa movement participation at Berkeley is another example of coordinated efforts to push political agenda with social unrest.

The State Department has spent billions in the Ukraine on political grass roots movements. Here is Victoria Nuland discussing the expenditures for propaganda.

Same mind set: establish goals for the political outcome, fund money for “communications” and democracy building efforts, and in the case of the Ukraine, to the tune of $5 billion dollars. Identify grass roots movements, help them shape their message. Sadly we know the outcome of the efforts – a duly elected government was overthrown by “nationalists”. Note, there is no direct implication here, only that the end result was the chaotic fall of a government elected by its people.

Let’s recap: social unrest, while in some cases can be spontaneous, can also be an effective tool for political change. When wielded effectively, the forces of social pressure can be brought to bear upon the political arena, ala Arab Spring, support during US elections and even in the Ukraine.

Could these techniques be used to effect a coup and oust a newly elected president? Do many of the events of the past month regarding president Trump’s relationship with the Russians, accusations of deep state eves dropping and leaks from anonymous sources seem any different than tactics used abroad.

Interestingly enough, the Showtime series Homelans, capitalizing on the possibility of a female president elect taking office amidst turmoil, poses many similar scenarios. The plot for the 2017 season follows a series of events mirrored closely on the 2016 election, including alt-media figures, deep state infighting, Iran as a political threat and a coup run by deep state militants.

In a revelatory scene, CIA protagonist Saul Berenson instructs the president elect on the history of propaganda used by the US government in foreign countries to topple unfavorable regimes. Note that he does not include Ukraine, but it clearly fits in with the list of countries that he sites. Yet how easily would Ukraine and the events of Trumps nascent presidency fir the same template? Should we be concerned and check our visceral reactions to sensational news media at the door?